Appeals Court Reverses Grant County Child Sex Abuse Conviction Over Undisclosed "Witness Signaling" Claim
The Washington State Court of Appeals reversed the convictions of a Grant County man for child rape, molestation, and incest today, ruling that a trial judge violated the “appearance of fairness doctrine” by failing to disclose allegations that a local victim advocate signaled to the child witnesses while they testified.
The unanimous decision by Division I of the state’s appellate court unwinds a high-stakes case, centering on a critical procedural error by Grant County Superior Court Judge Tyson R. Hill.
The Trial and the Rumor
The defendant, Christopher Collin Lester, was found guilty in a November 2023 bench trial in Ephrata.
The charges stemmed from abuse allegations involving his stepchildren in Soap Lake, followed by a confession he made to a designated crisis responder at Grant County Integrated Services in Moses Lake.
Lester was subsequently sentenced to 318 months in prison.
However, the appellate court’s opinion reveals that the integrity of the trial was fundamentally compromised by an undisclosed irregularity.
In December 2023, weeks after the trial had concluded, a second Grant County judge happened to bump into Lester’s defense attorney outside the courthouse.
The judge casually mentioned a rumor circulating among court staff: members of “New Hope,” a local victim and witness advocacy group, had been in the courtroom signaling to the children as they testified.
When the defense attorney investigated, a jury administrator confirmed the story. The administrator reported witnessing a New Hope member walking up the stairs with the child victims, pulling on her ear and telling them to “remember this signal.”
Crucially, the administrator confirmed she had reported this directly to Judge Hill during the trial.
The Trial Court’s Inaction
Despite receiving this highly irregular ex parte communication bearing directly on the credibility of the witnesses, Judge Hill never informed the defense or the prosecution before issuing his verdict.
At a subsequent sentencing hearing where the issue was finally raised, Judge Hill admitted he had been told about the signaling allegation.
According to the appellate court’s summary, the judge explained he decided to “keep a watchful eye” but “completely forgot about it” after not noticing any overt signaling during the testimony.
Judge Hill also reasoned that he couldn’t imagine New Hope would ever give a sign on how to answer a question, assuming the signal might merely be a way for the children to let advocates know they needed a break.
The Appellate Ruling
In an opinion authored by Judge David Mann, the Court of Appeals declared that this inaction fatally compromised the trial.
Under the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge who receives unauthorized ex parte information must promptly notify the parties.
The appellate court found that keeping the defense in the dark robbed Lester of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses about potential coaching, ask for curative measures, or investigate New Hope’s involvement while the trial was still active.
“An objective observer could conclude that the trial court received ex parte information bearing on witness testimony, assumed New Hope’s neutrality, and then kept the allegation to itself while serving as the fact finder,” Judge Mann wrote.
Furthermore, the appellate court noted that the judge’s assumption that New Hope would only use signals appropriately could be viewed as a bias toward the State and the advocacy group.
“We cannot condone informal and off the record handling of serious trial irregularities or allegations,” the opinion concluded.
What’s Next
The appellate court’s ruling does not exonerate Lester or evaluate the underlying evidence of abuse against him.
Instead, the court mandated that the convictions be reversed and the case remanded back to Grant County Superior Court for a brand-new trial before a different judge.
Disappointing. Ex parte communication is basic and I’m not even an attorney. Would love to have some kind of performance scorecard so when voting time comes around we are able to research an issue and make an educated decision regarding these people who are judging us.